Escape clause from global warming law

Escape clause from global warming law

Mark Landsbaum
Orange County Register
Oct. 1, 2010


If Proposition 23 on the Nov. 2 ballot doesn't pass, your lives, livelihoods and liberties will come inescapably under the thumb of the Administrative State.

Hyperbole, you say? Landsbaum's off his rocker, you say? Read on.

Prop. 23 would merely delay – mind you, not repeal – implementation of the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act, perhaps the most arrogantly misnamed law the California Legislature ever passed.

The Act, also known as Assembly Bill 32, set in motion an army of unelected, unaccountable Air Resources Board bureaucrats to write restrictive regulations and concoct an arbitrary cap-and-trade program to curtail greenhouse gas emissions, principally carbon dioxide. In effect, AB32 imposes a onerous energy tax to transfer wealth from innocent taxpayers and politically out-of-favor industries to endeavors that can't pay for themselves without taxpayer subsidies, things like windmill farms.

For perspective, carbon dioxide is the stuff you exhale. It's essential for plant growth, making it necessary for human existence. It's also a byproduct of virtually every human commercial activity, from pouring concrete to driving a car to flipping the light switch. What CO2 isn't, is a pollutant, even though the Supreme Court was persuaded to declare it one in 2007.

If government can regulate, tax and ration CO2, government can control just about everything. That's not hype.

Prop. 23 would delay this army of bureaucrats from inflicting who-knows-what economy-killing policies yet to be drafted. That's obviously prudent, considering unemployment in this state persistently hovers above 12 percent, and state government already is dysfunctional and out of control. The delay would prevent the state from rewarding friends and punishing enemies until unemployment drops to 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters, which has occurred three times in the past 40 years.AB32 is wrong in at least two significant ways. It's based on bad science and will result in bad economics.

The Science

The first thing to understand is that the only place manmade CO2 ever created catastrophe is in computer models. In fact, the presumed cause-and-effect relationship of CO2 and higher temperatures also exists only in theory.

If higher levels of CO2 were an absolute cause of hotter temperatures, we would have seen temperatures soar over the past dozen years because CO2 levels dramatically shot up. Instead, temperatures have been level or declining.

Then there's the inconvenient truth that the Earth has been at least as warm, or even much warmer than it is today, long before man began spewing CO2 into the air anywhere near the rate we do now.

Some of the same climate alarmists who demand we implement Draconian controls like AB32 are the same people who insisted in the 1970s the Earth was headed into a new Ice Age that would kill millions and cripple civilization. That catastrophe didn't happen, but we are to trust that this one will. Chicken Little comes to mind.

Not incidentally, the motive in the '70s was the same as today: control. Whether we're going to freeze or roast, the argument is that government must have greater control to save us.

Speaking of ice ages, the planet has been coming out of the most recent one for a few hundred years, quite a while before the uptick in industrial CO2 emissions of the past half century. One might reasonably surmise that we should be getting a tad warmer. If there's any increased warming in the past century, it's as likely a natural cycle as any other explanation.

Then there's this: Even by alarmists' calculations, temperatures over the past century increased less than 1 degree Celsius. If that sounds tiny, it's because it is. Is it conceivable when dealing with literally a fraction of a degree that the margin of error in measuring temperatures might come into play? You decide.

After the Soviet Union fell, more than 100 surface climate-data stations in the eastern portion of the nation, including Siberia, stopped recording temperatures. Russians had more important things to do. About that time, the so-called average global temperature began increasing.

Measuring stations that record surface temperatures "are disappearing worldwide at an alarming rate," says meteorologist Anthony Watts. Some have been closed, including many in Canada and Russia. Others simply disappeared. Those remaining can be problematic. Many once were located in placid pastoral settings but today are on heat-reflecting concrete and asphalt.

Watts' SurfaceStations.org documented 1,003 of the 1,221 U.S. measuring stations and found many "located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas. In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service's own siting requirements."

Those measurements, probably a better yardstick for how hot concrete can get than atmosphere, are included when calculating the so-called global temperature.

"How do we know global warming is a problem if we can't trust the U.S. temperature record?" Watts asks. By the way, the U.S. measuring stations are universally regarded to be far more reliable than the rest of the world's.

When climate researchers' e-mails were leaked last year, it was apparent that they consistently resisted challenges to their practices. One practice is "adjusting" temperature readings to align them with what "should" be expected – at least what is expected by researchers, whose grants hinge on defining global warming as a problem. A Russian think tank charged that measurements still being collected in that country were cherry-picked, discarding lower temperatures.

Let's sum up: Incomplete, questionable, perhaps cherry-picked temperatures that are "adjusted." Did we mention margin of error?It is this hodgepodge of sporadic, questionable temperature data that's fed into the touted computer models to project the future. Garbage in, garbage out?

One more point: climatologists on both sides agree that they haven't a clue whether or how much clouds increase, decrease or do both to global temperatures. They generally agree, however, clouds have far greater influence than CO2.

The Economics

If AB32 isn't stopped, by the time it is fully implemented it will have cost California about 1 million lost jobs, according to a Cal State Sacramento study. It also will increase costs for anything produced by energy. Electricity rates will go up as much as 60 percent, according to the Southern California Public Power Authority, and gasoline, diesel and natural gas prices will increase.

Opponents of Prop. 23 say the global warming law will offset this harm by creating "green" jobs. They promise these "clean-energy" jobs will sprout within renewable-energy industries, such as solar and wind power.

Next time you drive past windmill farms in the hinterlands, count how many "workers" you see toiling away. I've never see one. Ask yourself how many times you'll need to hire a "green" installer to put that outdoor plumbing on your roof to rig your house with solar panels.

Well, there's always the manufacturing jobs AB32 will create. In China.

To become windmill-reliant, whatever manufacturing jobs are created, there won't be many in California because of its burdensome, costly regulations. China, which doesn't have a cap-and-trade scheme that inhibits manufacturers, builds windmills for places like California, which we are told must have a cap-and-trade scheme. What's wrong with this picture?

Christopher Horner, author of "Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and Deception to Keep You Misinformed," notes that advocates for laws like AB32 say we must not let China win the windmill race. The fact is, the U.S. already has installed 33 percent more windmills than China, which apparently prefers selling them to saps like us. Incidentally, every three weeks China brings online a new, CO2-spewing, coal-fired power plant to meet its energy needs.

Let's allow, for argument's sake, that green jobs should be encouraged. Here's the problem: They are economic losers. Ask Germany, the Netherlands or Spain. In Spain, where green jobs are heavily subsidized by taxes, for every green job created, two normal jobs were lost. Moreover, those thrown out of work required unemployment aid.

Does it make sense to create a new economic model based on a product, whether windmills, solar panels or biofuels, that must be subsidized by taxpayers? Even if we disregard the viable jobs and profitable industries destroyed by such a policy, what of the tax-subsidized new ones we create?

"The very presence of subsidies and targeted favors for a particular good means that the real value of the resources being used to create that good is greater than the value of the good itself," William L. Anderson, associate professor of economics at Frostburg State University, writes in the Freeman. "No economy can grow under such circumstances. The reality is that 'green energy' actually causes the economy to contract."

CO2 most certainly is a pollutant and there is a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature. Please see the thread "dblboggie answers some climate questions" for answers to these myths because I am getting sick of repeating myself and dispelling nonsense spread by lunatic conspiracy theorists.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:CO2 most certainly is a pollutant and there is a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature. Please see the thread "dblboggie answers some climate questions" for answers to these myths because I am getting sick of repeating myself and dispelling nonsense spread by lunatic conspiracy theorists.

I actually posted this for you two guys.

On our forum I have a thread dispelling myths spread about climate change and climate science. I will eventually post it in here.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:CO2 most certainly is a pollutant and there is a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature. Please see the thread "dblboggie answers some climate questions" for answers to these myths because I am getting sick of repeating myself and dispelling nonsense spread by lunatic conspiracy theorists.

I will apologize in advance for my outburst. I was almost 500 words in before I came up for air to edit and realized this may come off as a bit confrontational. But I have decided to leave it largely unedited as it expresses my real feelings on this topic. As vehement as you can get Matt when faced with an "evolution denier," I get just as steamed on this particular topic. It is the one topic that can really rev me up. It has mostly to do with the blatant political agenda being forwarded in the name of AGW. I cannot separate the politics from the science because the science is being leveraged by politicians to enslave people to the state. And far too much of this science is being funded by the state. How you can ignore the naked political agenda is beyond my comprehension. I do not possess, myself, the faculties to accomplish this amazing feat. Now then, pre-apology submitted, on with the show.

I disagree vehemently. How can one call a gas that is absolutely vital to life on this planet a "pollutant?" If there were no CO2, there would be no life on planet earth!

The definition of the word pollute (Webster's New World College Dictionary 3rd Ed.) pollute: to make unclean, impure, or corrupt; defile; contaminate; dirty - SYN: contaminate.

How does something one cannot live without "pollute" our world?

I am getting sick of repeating myself. AGW is nothing more than a scam perpetrated by criminally dishonest politicians whose rapacious appetites for power and other people's money will never be satisfied.

If CO2 were the real driver behind "global warming," and it was ONLY that CO2 being generated by human activity (which by the way I will again emphasize is a tiny fraction of the tiny fraction of all CO2 present in our atmosphere) that drove this global warming, then the only real "solution" would be the destruction of nearly ALL the activities of mankind as nearly ALL of those activities generate CO2.

It is so illogical on it's face as to defy explanation!

Should we just go back to candles, horses and oxen (oops... those create CO2 also)? Should we raze our cities and restore them all to pasture land and slink back into the woods and live a hunter-gatherer existence?

What is the "solution" you would have us implement?

Isn't funny how CO2 get's all the blame? How utterly convenient for those rapacious politicians! Just think of the naked power CO2 regulation gives to these thieves. EVERYTHING mankind does involves CO2 - WE EXHALE THE STUFF EVERY SECOND OF OUR LIVES! The regulation of CO2 gives politicians UNLIMITED POWER TO CONTROL!!!

What is wrong with the people on this planet??? Who in their right mind would give ANYONE this much power???

I frankly don't care how many papers are churned out by scientists playing with their computer models - I will bet you a million dollars that in the course of history I will be proved right and AGW will eventually be exposed for the utter fraud that it has always been.

By the way, as a note, I do not submit that the Climate-Gate scandal was EVER put to rest. SEE HERE.

Note that the article was written by a Professor of Environmental Sciences. Seems not ALL scientists are on the same page here.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:I am getting sick of repeating myself and dispelling nonsense spread by lunatic conspiracy theorists.

And as for this bit... how sick do you think I am of repeating myself about this "conspiracy" theory thing?

IT'S NOT A FREAKING CONSPIRACY WHEN IT'S HAPPENING BEFORE YOUR VERY EYES!!!

Did you not READ the article Tex posted?!?! Have you not heard of the massive powers that "cap-and-trade" will give to unscrupulous, power hungry politicians and unelected bureaucrats over EVERY aspect of human activity in the name of curtailing CO2 "pollution???"

How in the hell is that a "conspiracy theory" as you say???? IT IS WRITTEN LEGISLATION!!!! It ceases to be a theory when the damn thing is in freaking writing!!!

dblboggie wrote:I disagree vehemently. How can one call a gas that is absolutely vital to life on this planet a "pollutant?" If there were no CO2, there would be no life on planet earth!

I thought you'd read all of the papers I presented you with? Why then do you keep repeating this issue I have answered so many times? For example, increased acidification of the oceans. These issues are all in the other thread and I know I have given you answers before. It frustrates me because now I think you are just dismissing everything I say with a patronising pat on the head.

And let us not forget that you have already admitted to not understanding the science. Yet you vehemently accept the 3% of science you do not understand over the 97% you do no understand.

dblboggie wrote:How does something one cannot live without "pollute" our world?

Seriously, is that your argument? We cannot live without food but too much of it and we grow fat, our arteries harden, we get heart disease and we die young. We NEED salt in our diet. Too much and we poison our bodies. Too little and we get sick.

dblboggie wrote:I am getting sick of repeating myself. AGW is nothing more than a scam perpetrated by criminally dishonest politicians whose rapacious appetites for power and other people's money will never be satisfied.

You can say it all you like. Doesn't make it true and you have no evidence for that position and you still refuse to tackle the scientific issues.

dblboggie wrote:I frankly don't care how many papers are churned out by scientists playing with their computer models

You believe what you believe, and that is that. So I'm wasting my time...

dblboggie wrote:I will bet you a million dollars that in the course of history I will be proved right and AGW will eventually be exposed for the utter fraud that it has always been.

And in bubblebliss' article he shows how the denialist crowd bedhop to every scientific issue of the day until they no longer have a leg to stand on and move on to something else.

dblboggie wrote:By the way, as a note, I do not submit that the Climate-Gate scandal was EVER put to rest. SEE HERE.

Note that the article was written by a Professor of Environmental Sciences. Seems not ALL scientists are on the same page here.

Answered a dozen times. A single paper proves nothing. He represents THREE PERCENT of climate researchers.

When 97% of the world's experts are in agreement on a matter regarding their subject of expertise, what possible reason could their be for doubting them?

These are scientists. Their professional opinion will be swung by the evidence which must be peer reviewed before it is accepted. If there were genuine evidence that climate change is NOT being cause by human activity, then in the scientific community all that would be needed to prove this is solid evidence. Scientific consensus is not arrived at by what is politically expedient or what is popular.

There is no evidence of a conspiracy. None whatsoever. Nor even any rational reason to imagine that such a conspiracy - comprised of independent scientists, with no geographical, ideological, racial, religious or political connection - should exist. The ONLY link they have is one of scientific understanding. And they agree - climate change is happening, we are causing it, and it is a serious issue which must be addressed.

There is however strong evidence that many of the most outspoken 'sceptics' - most often not climate experts - have been in the pay of oil companies.

All of these responses neglect to address the naked political agenda being driven by the AGW issue. All of the "solutions" being proposed do nothing but transfer massive new powers to governments to regulate ALL activities of mankind which produce CO2 - which as we all know are just about ANYTHING that mankind does - including just standing there and breathing.

Nor do these responses address what solutions you believe should be implemented to halt the so-called "warming" resulting from human activity.

It is my assertion that even if we halted ALL activity that produces CO2, short of holding our breath until we expire, it would still have a negligible impact on said alleged warming. But what this would do is throw the entire world into a massive and enormously destructive economic depression that would kill many more millions than the alleged global warming would.

Even the "solutions" now proposed (which would do NOTHING to alleviate the alleged warming) would seriously damage our economy to the point of sending our country into a protracted depression, sending unemployment skyrocketing from it's already dismal 10%, cutting our ability to send aid abroad, and hurting other economies that depend on trade with our country.

I would also like to know where this 97% figure comes from. It seems this is being bandied about without reference to its source. How is it that this 97% figure was arrived at? Who is it that compiled this figure? What science was used to derive it? A poll? If so, what were the questions? Who conducted it? Who selected the list of those to be polled? Who selected the method of polling? What method was used? How were they weighted? Who interpreted the results?

It is one thing to say "97% of scientists are in agreement" it's another thing entirely to prove that statement to be a true and factual representation of the truth.

Another argument both of you make to support AGW is the moral superiority of scientists and the peer review process. I would submit that you place an awful lot of faith in a process that is, after all, administered by mere humans; humans with all the foibles and flaws of character that any human is heir to.

When government and science merge, as they have undeniably done on the topic of AGW – after all, it is the immensely political IPCC which is the source of papers upon which governments set environmental policy – the temptations of man’s baser instincts is never far from the surface. There have been entire books dedicated to the subject of government funded science and the negative impacts on that science and the peer review process.

That such a partnership might skew or taint the resultant “science” does not in any way require the belief in some sort of nefarious “conspiracy” (a word very popular with AGW proponents when characterizing AGW opponents because of its negative connotations). Rather, human nature, being what it is, is sufficient force alone to introduce the bias and taint. Even free of government funding, science and the peer review process has never been free of the internal competition for resources and power because those involved are merely human beings subject the same warring conflicts between right and wrong inherent in human nature.

My objective, when examining the AGW issue, is to look at ALL the possible factors that might come into play on the issue. Since no one person could possibly know everything there is to know on the topic of the environment, ecology, geology, biology, (and all the other sciences necessary to the study of AGW) coupled with the technology requirements necessary to produce the software used to create the myriad computer models being used to generate or validate the findings of scientists in these fields, it is important to examine and consider those factors outside of the realm of science alone. Scientists are people too.

When this is done, one see’s at the center of the AGW movement, the United Nations (an inherently political body) IPCC (also a political body) riding herd on, and deciding what gets utilized or not in the publications being issued on the subject of AGW that is used by world governments in setting public policy respecting AGW.

Realizing that science can, in fact, be skewed by human nature, realizing that the peer review process is also subject to the same forces, knowing that the UN’s agenda is the redistribution of Western wealth to poorer nations, seeing that the IPCC’s “findings” give ample justification to governments to seize ever more power to effect that redistribution, observing the massive infusion of government money to fund the research and the stakes this represents to bodies of human scientists, one could safely view the work product of such an enterprise with a suspicious if not jaundiced eye.

You two seem enmeshed on the inside of this movement; focused on the nuts and bolts of the science, which I admit can be a compelling endeavor. It is fascinating what one can learn about the world around us through science. Science was the only subject I actually liked when I was in school. It was the only one that made sense to me, and the only one I succeeded in. It was clean, it had rules, it made sense, there were no messy variables as in the squishy “sciences” like social studies or literature or English class.

But then I left school, got a job, traveled around the country, learned as I went along, began to devour books on history and politics, and worked in politics. I worked with clients who had to go through the peer review process to get published. I’ve held an amazing variety of jobs, and spent a long life being a student of mankind and human nature. This is what I brought to my examination of the AGW issue. One can never look at the science alone, divorced entirely from all the human, financial and political turmoil that surrounds the issue. And when one examines it all together, there is an unmistakable agenda that comes to view. It does not require the belief in a “conspiracy” – it only requires an understanding of the influence of human nature in any endeavor of man.

It is this holistic examination of the AGW debate that neither of you address. It is why you selectively respond to only those issues I raise in my responses that have scientific explanations while ignoring the much more troubling political issues.

And I am fine with that. You are both obviously very competent when it comes to matters of science. I can respect that. And I have no reason to doubt your sincere belief (for lack of a better word) in the science behind AGW. And you, Matt, have been more than patient in trying to convince me of the infallibility of the science. I can appreciate the frustration such an endeavor entails.

But I cannot divorce the science from the politics on this issue. These are all people. They are not immune, no matter how many of them there are, from the exigencies of human nature when such stakes are present. In fact, I would submit that the more scientists that get on board with AGW, the more human nature rears its ugly head in creating a momentum to jump on the wagon. As I’ve said many times, scientists are people too.

Lamentably, I have found no inspiration to make the leap myself.

dblboggie wrote:But I cannot divorce the science from the politics on this issue.

I think that says it all... Not everything has to be political, you know? Just because politics may not like what science says, doesn't mean that science is wrong.

i_luv_miley wrote:

dblboggie wrote:But I cannot divorce the science from the politics on this issue.

I think that says it all... Not everything has to be political, you know? Just because politics may not like what science says, doesn't mean that science is wrong.

Nor does it mean the science is right. But more to the point, far from "politics" not liking "what science says," it is political bodies that heartily endorse what the "science says" because it gives them justification to greatly expand their power.

And while you may believe that not everything has to be political (and while this is true in certain cases), the issue of AGW is being driven by political bodies with clear political agendas. These are ignored at one's own peril.

dblboggie wrote:

i_luv_miley wrote:

dblboggie wrote:But I cannot divorce the science from the politics on this issue.

I think that says it all... Not everything has to be political, you know? Just because politics may not like what science says, doesn't mean that science is wrong.

Nor does it mean the science is right. But more to the point, far from "politics" not liking "what the science says," it is political bodies that heartily endorse what the "science says" because it gives them justification to greatly expand their power.

And while you may believe that not everything has to be political (and while this is true in certain cases), the issue of AGW is being driven by political bodies with clear political agendas. These are ignored at one's own peril.

So if one side isn't going to believe the science, while the other side is going to dismiss the politics, where does it end? The real question should be (IMO), what is driving this debate - politics or science? And since science is based on fact, the fact that people are still having this debate at all means that the answer to the question is politics... So from that, why don't those with political power actually try to do something about the problem? The answer to that??? Because it's not politically feasible (for them) to do so, that's why. Thus the end result is inevitable.

i_luv_miley wrote:

dblboggie wrote:

i_luv_miley wrote:

dblboggie wrote:But I cannot divorce the science from the politics on this issue.

I think that says it all... Not everything has to be political, you know? Just because politics may not like what science says, doesn't mean that science is wrong.

Nor does it mean the science is right. But more to the point, far from "politics" not liking "what the science says," it is political bodies that heartily endorse what the "science says" because it gives them justification to greatly expand their power.

And while you may believe that not everything has to be political (and while this is true in certain cases), the issue of AGW is being driven by political bodies with clear political agendas. These are ignored at one's own peril.

So if one side isn't going to believe the science, while the other side is going to dismiss the politics, where does it end? The real question should be (IMO), what is driving this debate - politics or science? And since science is based on fact, the fact that people are still having this debate at all means that the answer to the question is politics... So from that, why don't those with political power actually try to do something about the problem? The answer to that??? Because it's not politically feasible (for them) to do so, that's why. Thus the end result is inevitable.

You need to reread my 2nd post here. The science is not necessarily based on "fact." In fact, that you would take this position only proves that you did not read my post, because this was the whole point of that post.

dblboggie wrote:You need to reread my 2nd post here. The science is not necessarily based on "fact." In fact, that you would take this position only proves that you did not read my post, because this was the whole point of that post.

And that's the ultimate problem with the particular subject/debate. One person's "facts" disagree with another person's. So what's the point? In the end, this particular debate is driven solely by politics - and that is the problem. People just need to let science do its thing.

More to the point - if you line up ten politicians to debate the answer to "2+2", you will inevitably get ten different opinions as well as ten different answers.

i_luv_miley wrote:

dblboggie wrote:You need to reread my 2nd post here. The science is not necessarily based on "fact." In fact, that you would take this position only proves that you did not read my post, because this was the whole point of that post.

And that's the ultimate problem with the particular subject/debate. One person's "facts" disagree with another person's. So what's the point? In the end, this particular debate is driven solely by politics - and that is the problem. People just need to let science do its thing.

More to the point - if you line up ten politicians to debate the answer to "2+2", you will inevitably get ten different opinions as well as ten different answers.

The ultimate problem is not with science or politics. The ultimate problem is human nature. That has always been and will always be the ultimate problem.

dblboggie wrote:The ultimate problem is not with science or politics. The ultimate problem is human nature. That has always been and will always be the ultimate problem.

That's bull-pucky... Human nature is not a legitimate justification for a segment of the population just being wrong.

I agree, everyone has opinions - and we are free to do so. But when confronted with facts, those opinions should no longer matter as to the rightness or wrongness of a debate. And neither should politics.

But don't any of you ever question whether things are as they're said to be? Whether or not AGW is real or not, it bears to remind everyone that there's always room for improvement, debate and further study.... from both sides of the equation.

i_luv_miley wrote:

dblboggie wrote:The ultimate problem is not with science or politics. The ultimate problem is human nature. That has always been and will always be the ultimate problem.

That's bull-pucky... Human nature is not a legitimate justification for a segment of the population just being wrong.

I agree, everyone has opinions - and we are free to do so. But when confronted with facts, those opinions should no longer matter as to the rightness or wrongness of a debate. And neither should politics.

You just aren't getting it. Scientists, like politicians, are only people. They are not superhuman entities immune to the forces of human nature or the baser instincts of man.

Just because a scientist says a thing is so does not make it so. Just because a peer review board says a thing is so, does not make it so. Each of these are quite capable of falling prey to all the vices any human is heir to.

And when governments provide the vast bulk of the funding for a given enterprise such as AGW research, and when government bodies are put in charge of the compilation and interpretation of said work product, and when the "solutions" born from this work product serve only to enhance and expand the powers of the very governments sponsoring this enterprise, then said research must be viewed all the more skeptically.

Only the naive would hold such work product as beyond reproach.

Throughout history it has usually been the lone dissenters of the orthodoxy that are defamed or attacked because their views did not hew to the generally accepted views of the consensus. Right now, AGW is that orthodoxy. There are a few voices out there who would challenge the orthodoxy (an orthodoxy largely funded and directed by governments for governments); they are scientists too. And yet they are defamed and dismissed out of hand because science (or its spokespersons) has become so arrogant that any challenge to this orthodoxy is seen as a threat to their carefully constructed reality and thus has no place in "proper science." Heaven forbid that it turn out that it is not the back of a turtle upon which the world rests.

And heaven forbid that it turns out that it is not anthropogenic CO2 production that triggers warming. What would this do to all those wonderful schemes to expand government power in the name of AGW? What would come of all their investments in the pursuit of that power? And what would become of those who were most vociferous in advocating on behalf of assuming that power in the name of AGW?

Human nature has much to hang its hat on in this turbulent mess that is AGW.

TexasBlue wrote:But don't any of you ever question whether things are as they're said to be? Whether or not AGW is real or not, it bears to remind everyone that there's always room for improvement, debate and further study.... from both sides of the equation.

Of course I do! That is why I oppose the drastic actions being proposed by AGW alarmists. What they are advocating in our country is not only extremely destructive of our economy, at a time when it can least afford further shocks, it is also massively unconstitutional.

If we are to take such dramatic and drastic measures, then we had better be damn certain that it is every bit the horrible, earth crushing disaster that some would have us believe.

And yet there are very real scientists out there, who believe AGW to be real, but who say the outcomes could actually have beneficial impacts. There are other scientists who say there is warming, but it is not anthropogenic. There are still others who say we have been cooling and that we are in for a protracted cooling cycle.

And yet we are to surrender our sovereignty and our treasure because the sky is falling RIGHT NOW, and we must act NOW, NOW, NOW... BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!!

I don't buy it. It may be warming, it may not. It may be anthropogenic, it may not. It may be that CO2 is the culprit, it may not.

Before I toss our Constitution and our economy in the shredder, I will need a LOT more assurance that this is necessary than some epistles issued from on high by the anti-capitalist United Nations and their IPCC.

Call me a skeptic. As far as I'm concerned the UN's actions in the past give me great justification for being so.

dblboggie wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:But don't any of you ever question whether things are as they're said to be? Whether or not AGW is real or not, it bears to remind everyone that there's always room for improvement, debate and further study.... from both sides of the equation.

Of course I do! That is why I oppose the drastic actions being proposed by AGW alarmists. What they are advocating in our country is not only extremely destructive of our economy, at a time when it can least afford further shocks, it is also massively unconstitutional.

If we are to take such dramatic and drastic measures, then we had better be damn certain that it is every bit the horrible, earth crushing disaster that some would have us believe.

And yet there are very real scientists out there, who believe AGW to be real, but who say the outcomes could actually have beneficial impacts. There are other scientists who say there is warming, but it is not anthropogenic. There are still others who say we have been cooling and that we are in for a protracted cooling cycle.

And yet we are to surrender our sovereignty and our treasure because the sky is falling RIGHT NOW, and we must act NOW, NOW, NOW... BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!!

I don't buy it. It may be warming, it may not. It may be anthropogenic, it may not. It may be that CO2 is the culprit, it may not.

Before I toss our Constitution and our economy in the shredder, I will need a LOT more assurance that this is necessary than some epistles issued from on high by the anti-capitalist United Nations and their IPCC.

Call me a skeptic. As far as I'm concerned the UN's actions in the past give me great justification for being so.

It sounds like you're saying that the Constitution trumps science. Sorry, but that's ludicrous. It's also dangerous. The Constitution is a guide in which to follow. It allows for grey areas in many instances - as it should. Science doesn't have grey areas - not if it's done correctly. It's black and white. The climate is changing. It has been changing for four billion years. It will continue to change for as long as the planet exists. That has been proven. It has also been proven that humanity has had one hell of an impact on the environment - especially over the past 300 years. Those are facts. They can not be disputed. Period! Of course, there are also "natural" things that can screw up the environment in a big way - and undoubtedly some in ways that humans couldn't begin to "acheive" (i.e. supervolcanoes, asteroid impact, etc). But there is no question that humanity has made a big impact. To question that or deny it is insane. And to politicize it is asinine. Of course we humans need "resources" (and yes, much from the Earth itself). But that doesn't mean that it's the GOP's birthright to dig them all up at all costs - world be damned. It's no more their birthright to do that than it is the birthright of us liberals to have (decent) healthcare. Right?

There has to be a balance.

i_luv_miley wrote:

dblboggie wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:But don't any of you ever question whether things are as they're said to be? Whether or not AGW is real or not, it bears to remind everyone that there's always room for improvement, debate and further study.... from both sides of the equation.

Of course I do! That is why I oppose the drastic actions being proposed by AGW alarmists. What they are advocating in our country is not only extremely destructive of our economy, at a time when it can least afford further shocks, it is also massively unconstitutional.

If we are to take such dramatic and drastic measures, then we had better be damn certain that it is every bit the horrible, earth crushing disaster that some would have us believe.

And yet there are very real scientists out there, who believe AGW to be real, but who say the outcomes could actually have beneficial impacts. There are other scientists who say there is warming, but it is not anthropogenic. There are still others who say we have been cooling and that we are in for a protracted cooling cycle.

And yet we are to surrender our sovereignty and our treasure because the sky is falling RIGHT NOW, and we must act NOW, NOW, NOW... BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!!

I don't buy it. It may be warming, it may not. It may be anthropogenic, it may not. It may be that CO2 is the culprit, it may not.

Before I toss our Constitution and our economy in the shredder, I will need a LOT more assurance that this is necessary than some epistles issued from on high by the anti-capitalist United Nations and their IPCC.

Call me a skeptic. As far as I'm concerned the UN's actions in the past give me great justification for being so.

It sounds like you're saying that the Constitution trumps science. Sorry, but that's ludicrous. It's also dangerous. The Constitution is a guide in which to follow. It allows for grey areas in many instances - as it should. Science doesn't have grey areas - not if it's done correctly. It's black and white. The climate is changing. It has been changing for four billion years. It will continue to change for as long as the planet exists. That has been proven. It has also been proven that humanity has had one hell of an impact on the environment - especially over the past 300 years. Those are facts. They can not be disputed. Period! Of course, there are also "natural" things that can screw up the environment in a big way - and undoubtedly some in ways that humans couldn't begin to "acheive" (i.e. supervolcanoes, asteroid impact, etc). But there is no question that humanity has made a big impact. To question that or deny it is insane. And to politicize it is asinine. Of course we humans need "resources" (and yes, much from the Earth itself). But that doesn't mean that it's the GOP's birthright to dig them all up at all costs - world be damned. It's no more their birthright to do that than it is the birthright of us liberals to have (decent) healthcare. Right?

There has to be a balance.

That statement alone, the one I’ve bolded and underlined, pegs you as a pure ideologue. There is nothing in this world that cannot be disputed. As long as you think that science is the be all and end all of public debate on the topic of AGW, there is no reasoning with you. You completely fail to factor in the most corrosive factor in all science, and that is human nature. To accept your premise is to assume that all scientists contributing to the AGW side of this debate are infallible human beings with no taint of human nature in their work. This assumption is absurd on its face!

Even gravity has its proponents and opponents. NOTHING is sacred when it comes to true science. To declare that something as young as AGW “science” has come up with all the answers, and that their answers are “indisputable” is arrogance beyond belief! NOTHING is EVER black and white in this world, not even science! To even suggest this shows that you are completely uneducated on the history of this world.

And you have no more of a “birthright” to “have (decent) healthcare” than to have a nice house, a job, a (decent) car, or a vacation! These things are NOT “rights” because to declare them such means you must STEAL from another their life’s labor to provide them to you!

Where on earth are you getting these insane ideas?

You have rights to life (doesn’t cost any one anything), liberty (again, at no cost to anyone else), and the pursuit of happiness (which again, does not impose a cost on anyone else).

If you read carefully through the Bill of Rights, you will find that there is only ONE right, a right to a trial by one’s peers, that even remotely impinges on another’s life. There is a reason for that. I suggest you ask yourself why.

i_luv_miley wrote:It sounds like you're saying that the Constitution trumps science. Sorry, but that's ludicrous. It's also dangerous.

That statement is as ludicrous as someone coming in here saying that religion trumps the constitution.

You may feel at way till something you disagree with takes away your constitutional rights.

dblboggie wrote:All of these responses neglect to address the naked political agenda being driven by the AGW issue.

There is no evidence of a political agenda behind the work of the world's leading experts on climate change. If you have some evidence - hard evidence - then I would be very interested in seeing it.

All of the "solutions" being proposed do nothing but transfer massive new powers to governments to regulate ALL activities of mankind which produce CO2 - which as we all know are just about ANYTHING that mankind does - including just standing there and breathing.

You're distorting the issue. Before we begin to consider what to do to tackle the problem, we need to establish whether the problem exists, whether it is being by human activity and whether this problem is serious enough to be addressed.

With regards to climate change - the leading world's leading experts have answered those three questions with a resounding "yes."

Nor do these responses address what solutions you believe should be implemented to halt the so-called "warming" resulting from human activity.

There's no point in discussing solutions if many people still refuse to acknowledge that climate change is happening, that it is being caused by human activity and that it is a serious problem which needs to be tackled.

It is my assertion that even if we halted ALL activity that produces CO2, short of holding our breath until we expire, it would still have a negligible impact on said alleged warming. But what this would do is throw the entire world into a massive and enormously destructive economic depression that would kill many more millions than the alleged global warming would.

I'm afraid that your opinions on the subject carry no weight with regard to the science of the subject - unless you can provide some scientific evidence to support them. What you are saying might seem like common sense to you - but common sense is notoriously unreliable, it is after all, what tells us that the earth is flat. No one is saying that we need to get rid of all CO2, to suggest that really only indicates an utter unfamiliarity with the science of climate change on your part. Here's the answer to that issue:

How much carbon dioxide do humans contribute through breathing?
The average person, through the natural process of breathing, produces approximately 2.3 pounds (1 kg) of carbon dioxide per day. The actual amount depends strongly on the person’s activity level. However, this carbon dioxide is part of a natural closed-loop cycle and does not contribute to the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Natural processes of photosynthesis (in plants) and respiration (in plants and animals) maintain a balance of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Thus, the carbon dioxide from natural process is not included in greenhouse gas inventories.

In contrast, the burning of fossil fuels upsets this natural equilibrium by adding a surplus of carbon dioxide into the system. The carbon in fossil fuels has been stored underground for millions of years and thus is not part of the current natural carbon cycle. When those fuels are burned, the carbon dioxide generated is over and above the amount circulating from natural sources. Land use changes such as deforestation also upset the natural equilibrium by reducing the amount of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere by forests. Thus, both fossil fuel burning and deforestation are accounted for by scientists who develop greenhouse gas inventories to study how greenhouse gases contribute to climate change.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/fq/emissions.html#q7

Even the "solutions" now proposed (which would do NOTHING to alleviate the alleged warming) would seriously damage our economy to the point of sending our country into a protracted depression, sending unemployment skyrocketing from it's already dismal 10%, cutting our ability to send aid abroad, and hurting other economies that depend on trade with our country.

There's not really any point in discussing the solutions to global warming when you do not accept that it is happening, that it is happening as a result of human activity or that it requires addressing.

I would also like to know where this 97% figure comes from. It seems this is being bandied about without reference to its source. How is it that this 97% figure was arrived at? Who is it that compiled this figure? What science was used to derive it? A poll? If so, what were the questions? Who conducted it? Who selected the list of those to be polled? Who selected the method of polling? What method was used? How were they weighted? Who interpreted the results?

It is one thing to say "97% of scientists are in agreement" it's another thing entirely to prove that statement to be a true and factual representation of the truth.

Certainly! Though I'm surprised you don't already know all about this statistic, Matt has indicated to me that he has already provided you with this information, and it can be found on even the most basic climate change resources, including wikipedia, here's a link:

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming.

Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and resulted in the following two conclusions:
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[94]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Another argument both of you make to support AGW is the moral superiority of scientists and the peer review process. I would submit that you place an awful lot of faith in a process that is, after all, administered by mere humans; humans with all the foibles and flaws of character that any human is heir to.

Ah, no. You've made a mistake there. My argument has absolutely nothing to do with the 'moral superiority' of scientists, and everything to do with the scientific method. I would be the first to admit that the peer review system is not perfect, but it is certainly the best system that we have for experts on a subject to test their ideas and to reach a scientific consensus.

We can't all be experts on every subject in the world, that is why we consult doctors, mechanics, electricians, vets, etc. When it comes to climate change, I can educate myself to a reasonable level - but I'm never going to be an expert. If 97% of those experts are in agreement on a subject - then I can think of no reason for not trusting in their collective judgement.

When government and science merge, as they have undeniably done on the topic of AGW –

Really? How so? Can you show me where and how the government have interfered in the progress of climate science over the last several decades as data has been recorded, analysed, contrasted, compared, argued over and reviewed? Can you then explain how climate scientists from all over the world - not just in one country, or under one government - could possibly have been influenced into deliberately lying about the data they have collected and indeed corrupting and distorting it to suit the unspecified agenda of this unspecified global power?

after all, it is the immensely political IPCC which is the source of papers upon which governments set environmental policy –

And here we are talking about solutions again - and there's no point. Let's stick to the basic issues:

1. Is climate change happening?
2. Is it being caused by human activity?
3. Do we need to address the problem?

Never mind how we address the problem, before we can think about that we need to access the extent of the problem.

the temptations of man’s baser instincts is never far from the surface.

Sure. Like finding any excuse not to believe scientific consensus (including promoting global conspiracy theories) - because you don't happen to like the conclusions or the impacts it might have on your lifestyle and 'freedoms'

There have been entire books dedicated to the subject of government funded science and the negative impacts on that science and the peer review process.

Climate change is researched all over the world, not only in your country - which government is it you think is behind all of this, funding the research which has been compiled all over the world in the past decades?

And there are also entire books dedicated to why intelligent people refuse to accept climate change.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Disagree-About-Climate-Change-Understanding/dp/0521727324/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1286806806&sr=8-1

That such a partnership might skew or taint the resultant “science” does not in any way require the belief in some sort of nefarious “conspiracy” (a word very popular with AGW proponents when characterizing AGW opponents because of its negative connotations).

Let's just pause there. Now, I agree, individual works, papers - even the work of an individual college can be pretty seriously affected by political concerns - take for example the work of 'Creationists', in their own colleges, publishing in their own journals. Or the piece of work that resulted in the MMR scare. These isolated incidents can happen - and they explode out of all reasonable proportion and enter the public consciousness because people don't listen to the scientific consensus; they don't listen to the experts. Instead they listen to the press, who don't listen to the scientists, because they are irresponsible in the way they report on stories - and because of human nature. But I can't think of an example where the scientific method & peer review system has failed so catastrophically as to allow almost all of the world's independent scientists to have deliberately lied about a subject due to political pressure. Can you? Because that is what you are suggesting.

But I don't think that you appreciate for one moment the sheer magnitude of the conspiracy - and I don't use that word lightly - you are suggesting. For 97% of the world's leading climate change experts to be deliberately misleading the rest of the world, then yes, we would have to be talking about a global conspiracy of epic proportions. It would have had to have started decades ago. It would have to be on a global scale, in every major university in the world where climate scientists work. These scientists must not only be deliberately falsifying data, but lying about the findings they record.

Rather, human nature, being what it is, is sufficient force alone to introduce the bias and taint.

Oh it can - but thankfully, the scientific method and the peer review process help to keep those biases to a minimum. We cannot say the same about the things that are printed in the popular press - where the views of minority groups, crackpots and swindlers are given as much air time and space as respected scientists - or even the scientific consensus! The scientific method also helps to stop people from believing what they want to believe and what seems likely because it sounds good.

Even free of government funding, science and the peer review process has never been free of the internal competition for resources and power because those involved are merely human beings subject the same warring conflicts between right and wrong inherent in human nature.

But the system helps keep it to a minimum. What system of peer review do you think the press and the oil companies are subject to? Indeed, what system of peer review - what scientific method - are your own thoughts and opinions subject to?

My objective, when examining the AGW issue, is to look at ALL the possible factors that might come into play on the issue. Since no one person could possibly know everything there is to know on the topic of the environment, ecology, geology, biology, (and all the other sciences necessary to the study of AGW) coupled with the technology requirements necessary to produce the software used to create the myriad computer models being used to generate or validate the findings of scientists in these fields, it is important to examine and consider those factors outside of the realm of science alone. Scientists are people too.

Why yes they are - and so are you. Are you sure you know which of those factors you are free from when you look at this issue? I don't put all of my faith in the peer review system, I know it is flawed - but I know it is the best that we have, I understand how the scientific method, and the scientific community works - and I KNOW that the systems they have put in place help to counter human bias. And for the most part, it works. I also know that when 97% of the world's experts are agreed on a subject - that the rational thing to do is to listen to them.

When this is done, one see’s at the center of the AGW movement, the United Nations (an inherently political body) IPCC (also a political body) riding herd on, and deciding what gets utilized or not in the publications being issued on the subject of AGW that is used by world governments in setting public policy respecting AGW.

Now we're wandering back into 'how things get fixed' territory again - aren't we? Well, there's no point until we've covered points 1,2 & 3: is it happening, are we doing it, do we need to do something about it? So let's just stick to this - are you seriously suggesting that the IPCC and the United Nations have been interfering in global scientific research and data collection for the past few decades. Really? And they've convinced ALL of the world's leading climate scientists to go along with it?

Realizing that science can, in fact, be skewed by human nature, realizing that the peer review process is also subject to the same forces, knowing that the UN’s agenda is the redistribution of Western wealth to poorer nations, seeing that the IPCC’s “findings” give ample justification to governments to seize ever more power to effect that redistribution, observing the massive infusion of government money to fund the research and the stakes this represents to bodies of human scientists, one could safely view the work product of such an enterprise with a suspicious if not jaundiced eye.

Is it happening, are we doing it, do we need to do something about it? We really should stick with those issues, instead of speculating on the objectives of the UN and the IPCC. You really believe those two groups have influenced all the world's leading climate scientists - and most of the others too? You really think they've been influencing ALL of the scientists in the entire world for decades now to lie about their findings?

You two seem enmeshed on the inside of this movement; focused on the nuts and bolts of the science, which I admit can be a compelling endeavor.

Science first - everything else follows. There is no point in even discussing the ifs and buts and whats and hows if you're starting from an uneven foundation. Your argument has been a blur of politics feeding into science, science feeding into politics, all being driven by some unseen force which wants to control our lives for political reasons. Just take a step back.

One can never look at the science alone, divorced entirely from all the human, financial and political turmoil that surrounds the issue.

Well - yes one can. That really is the point of science. Before you can consider anything else you HAVE to look at the nuts and bolts of an issue, before all those other icky bits of human nature come sliding in. What we want to be true, how will it effect us if it is true, what will the consequences be of our action, what will the consequences be of our inaction, etc. You need to break the issue down. You HAVE to start with the science.

And when one examines it all together, there is an unmistakable agenda that comes to view. It does not require the belief in a “conspiracy” – it only requires an understanding of the influence of human nature in any endeavor of man.

You're wrong - it would take one almighty conspiracy for AGW to have been invented. And an understanding of the influence of human nature in any endeavour of man is apparent in the every word of climate change deniers - not in the cold hard facts of science. Can science be skewed and manipulated? Of course it can. But can an entire branch of science, almost every single expert in the field, every journal, every university, every paper, every study be manipulated by some unspecified political force which wants to restrict the freedom of people in the western world for some unspecified reason, rationally be said to have been manipulated to such an extent? No. Of course it can't.

It is this holistic examination of the AGW debate that neither of you address. It is why you selectively respond to only those issues I raise in my responses that have scientific explanations while ignoring the much more troubling political issues.

The problem is that as far as I can see, you have totally failed to address the science - and that is at the heart of this issue. Without it - there is NO issue. There is nothing to talk about. Once we have established the facts - then we can consider the politics. But to insist - with no justification - that the the world's experts are wrong or lying is just a nonsense. You would prefer to rely upon your common sense and your gut instinct than look at the facts. If you understand so much about human nature then you will understand that people will often refuse to accept an unpalatable truth, they will ignore the facts if they don't suit them, they will seek scapegoats and rely upon their instincts and feelings when they would do better to seek expert opinion and face up to those problems.

But I cannot divorce the science from the politics on this issue. These are all people. They are not immune, no matter how many of them there are, from the exigencies of human nature when such stakes are present. In fact, I would submit that the more scientists that get on board with AGW, the more human nature rears its ugly head in creating a momentum to jump on the wagon. As I’ve said many times, scientists are people too.

Yes, human nature does indeed rear its ugly head - when 97% of the world's experts are ignored by 60% of the (American) population when they tell them that climate change is cause by human activity - then there is a very serious problemhen government and science mergean nature - and a desire to bury our heads rather than face unpleasant truths, to believe our own gut feelings rather than to consider the hard facts and to look to the short comings of others, rather than to consider the problems with our own reasoning.

dblboggie wrote:There is nothing in this world that cannot be disputed.

And there is the crux of our disagreement. Yes there is. There are some things in this world that cannot be disputed. We can disagree about the "hows" and "whys". But in many cases the "whats" are set in stone - and irrefutable (refudiated?). And since you brought it up, gravity is one of those things. It's a law. It's fact. It's real. It exists. It's been proven. Science proved it. It cannot be disputed at all. Ever. Period.

And that's my point... There are no "laws" in politics - only opinions (usually to serve one's singular purpose). Science may have disagreements at times (as it should), but if done truthfully over time (using more science) those disagreements should ultimately fade away. And of course, some of that takes a hell of a long time. It's why it took us hundreds of years to figure out that the Earth went around the Sun. Even though the "idea" went against everything that had been "known" up to that point, someone realized that the "idea" was wrong and over time figured out what really happened. That's science. And no, if done truthfully, science can not be influenced by human nature. Sure, human nature can "try" to influence science, but if so, that means the science isn't being done truthfully. Or that some people are just stupid.

BecMacFeegle wrote:

dblboggie wrote:All of these responses neglect to address the naked political agenda being driven by the AGW issue.

There is no evidence of a political agenda behind the work of the world's leading experts on climate change. If you have some evidence - hard evidence - then I would be very interested in seeing it.

All of the "solutions" being proposed do nothing but transfer massive new powers to governments to regulate ALL activities of mankind which produce CO2 - which as we all know are just about ANYTHING that mankind does - including just standing there and breathing.

You're distorting the issue. Before we begin to consider what to do to tackle the problem, we need to establish whether the problem exists, whether it is being by human activity and whether this problem is serious enough to be addressed.

With regards to climate change - the leading world's leading experts have answered those three questions with a resounding "yes."

Nor do these responses address what solutions you believe should be implemented to halt the so-called "warming" resulting from human activity.

There's no point in discussing solutions if many people still refuse to acknowledge that climate change is happening, that it is being caused by human activity and that it is a serious problem which needs to be tackled.

It is my assertion that even if we halted ALL activity that produces CO2, short of holding our breath until we expire, it would still have a negligible impact on said alleged warming. But what this would do is throw the entire world into a massive and enormously destructive economic depression that would kill many more millions than the alleged global warming would.

I'm afraid that your opinions on the subject carry no weight with regard to the science of the subject - unless you can provide some scientific evidence to support them. What you are saying might seem like common sense to you - but common sense is notoriously unreliable, it is after all, what tells us that the earth is flat. No one is saying that we need to get rid of all CO2, to suggest that really only indicates an utter unfamiliarity with the science of climate change on your part. Here's the answer to that issue:

How much carbon dioxide do humans contribute through breathing?
The average person, through the natural process of breathing, produces approximately 2.3 pounds (1 kg) of carbon dioxide per day. The actual amount depends strongly on the person’s activity level. However, this carbon dioxide is part of a natural closed-loop cycle and does not contribute to the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Natural processes of photosynthesis (in plants) and respiration (in plants and animals) maintain a balance of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Thus, the carbon dioxide from natural process is not included in greenhouse gas inventories.

In contrast, the burning of fossil fuels upsets this natural equilibrium by adding a surplus of carbon dioxide into the system. The carbon in fossil fuels has been stored underground for millions of years and thus is not part of the current natural carbon cycle. When those fuels are burned, the carbon dioxide generated is over and above the amount circulating from natural sources. Land use changes such as deforestation also upset the natural equilibrium by reducing the amount of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere by forests. Thus, both fossil fuel burning and deforestation are accounted for by scientists who develop greenhouse gas inventories to study how greenhouse gases contribute to climate change.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/fq/emissions.html#q7

Even the "solutions" now proposed (which would do NOTHING to alleviate the alleged warming) would seriously damage our economy to the point of sending our country into a protracted depression, sending unemployment skyrocketing from it's already dismal 10%, cutting our ability to send aid abroad, and hurting other economies that depend on trade with our country.

There's not really any point in discussing the solutions to global warming when you do not accept that it is happening, that it is happening as a result of human activity or that it requires addressing.

I would also like to know where this 97% figure comes from. It seems this is being bandied about without reference to its source. How is it that this 97% figure was arrived at? Who is it that compiled this figure? What science was used to derive it? A poll? If so, what were the questions? Who conducted it? Who selected the list of those to be polled? Who selected the method of polling? What method was used? How were they weighted? Who interpreted the results?

It is one thing to say "97% of scientists are in agreement" it's another thing entirely to prove that statement to be a true and factual representation of the truth.

Certainly! Though I'm surprised you don't already know all about this statistic, Matt has indicated to me that he has already provided you with this information, and it can be found on even the most basic climate change resources, including wikipedia, here's a link:

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming.

Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and resulted in the following two conclusions:
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[94]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Another argument both of you make to support AGW is the moral superiority of scientists and the peer review process. I would submit that you place an awful lot of faith in a process that is, after all, administered by mere humans; humans with all the foibles and flaws of character that any human is heir to.

Ah, no. You've made a mistake there. My argument has absolutely nothing to do with the 'moral superiority' of scientists, and everything to do with the scientific method. I would be the first to admit that the peer review system is not perfect, but it is certainly the best system that we have for experts on a subject to test their ideas and to reach a scientific consensus.

We can't all be experts on every subject in the world, that is why we consult doctors, mechanics, electricians, vets, etc. When it comes to climate change, I can educate myself to a reasonable level - but I'm never going to be an expert. If 97% of those experts are in agreement on a subject - then I can think of no reason for not trusting in their collective judgement.

When government and science merge, as they have undeniably done on the topic of AGW –

Really? How so? Can you show me where and how the government have interfered in the progress of climate science over the last several decades as data has been recorded, analysed, contrasted, compared, argued over and reviewed? Can you then explain how climate scientists from all over the world - not just in one country, or under one government - could possibly have been influenced into deliberately lying about the data they have collected and indeed corrupting and distorting it to suit the unspecified agenda of this unspecified global power?

after all, it is the immensely political IPCC which is the source of papers upon which governments set environmental policy –

And here we are talking about solutions again - and there's no point. Let's stick to the basic issues:

1. Is climate change happening?
2. Is it being caused by human activity?
3. Do we need to address the problem?

Never mind how we address the problem, before we can think about that we need to access the extent of the problem.

the temptations of man’s baser instincts is never far from the surface.

Sure. Like finding any excuse not to believe scientific consensus (including promoting global conspiracy theories) - because you don't happen to like the conclusions or the impacts it might have on your lifestyle and 'freedoms'

There have been entire books dedicated to the subject of government funded science and the negative impacts on that science and the peer review process.

Climate change is researched all over the world, not only in your country - which government is it you think is behind all of this, funding the research which has been compiled all over the world in the past decades?

And there are also entire books dedicated to why intelligent people refuse to accept climate change.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Disagree-About-Climate-Change-Understanding/dp/0521727324/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1286806806&sr=8-1

That such a partnership might skew or taint the resultant “science” does not in any way require the belief in some sort of nefarious “conspiracy” (a word very popular with AGW proponents when characterizing AGW opponents because of its negative connotations).

Let's just pause there. Now, I agree, individual works, papers - even the work of an individual college can be pretty seriously affected by political concerns - take for example the work of 'Creationists', in their own colleges, publishing in their own journals. Or the piece of work that resulted in the MMR scare. These isolated incidents can happen - and they explode out of all reasonable proportion and enter the public consciousness because people don't listen to the scientific consensus; they don't listen to the experts. Instead they listen to the press, who don't listen to the scientists, because they are irresponsible in the way they report on stories - and because of human nature. But I can't think of an example where the scientific method & peer review system has failed so catastrophically as to allow almost all of the world's independent scientists to have deliberately lied about a subject due to political pressure. Can you? Because that is what you are suggesting.

But I don't think that you appreciate for one moment the sheer magnitude of the conspiracy - and I don't use that word lightly - you are suggesting. For 97% of the world's leading climate change experts to be deliberately misleading the rest of the world, then yes, we would have to be talking about a global conspiracy of epic proportions. It would have had to have started decades ago. It would have to be on a global scale, in every major university in the world where climate scientists work. These scientists must not only be deliberately falsifying data, but lying about the findings they record.

Rather, human nature, being what it is, is sufficient force alone to introduce the bias and taint.

Oh it can - but thankfully, the scientific method and the peer review process help to keep those biases to a minimum. We cannot say the same about the things that are printed in the popular press - where the views of minority groups, crackpots and swindlers are given as much air time and space as respected scientists - or even the scientific consensus! The scientific method also helps to stop people from believing what they want to believe and what seems likely because it sounds good.

Even free of government funding, science and the peer review process has never been free of the internal competition for resources and power because those involved are merely human beings subject the same warring conflicts between right and wrong inherent in human nature.

But the system helps keep it to a minimum. What system of peer review do you think the press and the oil companies are subject to? Indeed, what system of peer review - what scientific method - are your own thoughts and opinions subject to?

My objective, when examining the AGW issue, is to look at ALL the possible factors that might come into play on the issue. Since no one person could possibly know everything there is to know on the topic of the environment, ecology, geology, biology, (and all the other sciences necessary to the study of AGW) coupled with the technology requirements necessary to produce the software used to create the myriad computer models being used to generate or validate the findings of scientists in these fields, it is important to examine and consider those factors outside of the realm of science alone. Scientists are people too.

Why yes they are - and so are you. Are you sure you know which of those factors you are free from when you look at this issue? I don't put all of my faith in the peer review system, I know it is flawed - but I know it is the best that we have, I understand how the scientific method, and the scientific community works - and I KNOW that the systems they have put in place help to counter human bias. And for the most part, it works. I also know that when 97% of the world's experts are agreed on a subject - that the rational thing to do is to listen to them.

When this is done, one see’s at the center of the AGW movement, the United Nations (an inherently political body) IPCC (also a political body) riding herd on, and deciding what gets utilized or not in the publications being issued on the subject of AGW that is used by world governments in setting public policy respecting AGW.

Now we're wandering back into 'how things get fixed' territory again - aren't we? Well, there's no point until we've covered points 1,2 & 3: is it happening, are we doing it, do we need to do something about it? So let's just stick to this - are you seriously suggesting that the IPCC and the United Nations have been interfering in global scientific research and data collection for the past few decades. Really? And they've convinced ALL of the world's leading climate scientists to go along with it?

Realizing that science can, in fact, be skewed by human nature, realizing that the peer review process is also subject to the same forces, knowing that the UN’s agenda is the redistribution of Western wealth to poorer nations, seeing that the IPCC’s “findings” give ample justification to governments to seize ever more power to effect that redistribution, observing the massive infusion of government money to fund the research and the stakes this represents to bodies of human scientists, one could safely view the work product of such an enterprise with a suspicious if not jaundiced eye.

Is it happening, are we doing it, do we need to do something about it? We really should stick with those issues, instead of speculating on the objectives of the UN and the IPCC. You really believe those two groups have influenced all the world's leading climate scientists - and most of the others too? You really think they've been influencing ALL of the scientists in the entire world for decades now to lie about their findings?

You two seem enmeshed on the inside of this movement; focused on the nuts and bolts of the science, which I admit can be a compelling endeavor.

Science first - everything else follows. There is no point in even discussing the ifs and buts and whats and hows if you're starting from an uneven foundation. Your argument has been a blur of politics feeding into science, science feeding into politics, all being driven by some unseen force which wants to control our lives for political reasons. Just take a step back.

One can never look at the science alone, divorced entirely from all the human, financial and political turmoil that surrounds the issue.

Well - yes one can. That really is the point of science. Before you can consider anything else you HAVE to look at the nuts and bolts of an issue, before all those other icky bits of human nature come sliding in. What we want to be true, how will it effect us if it is true, what will the consequences be of our action, what will the consequences be of our inaction, etc. You need to break the issue down. You HAVE to start with the science.

And when one examines it all together, there is an unmistakable agenda that comes to view. It does not require the belief in a “conspiracy” – it only requires an understanding of the influence of human nature in any endeavor of man.

You're wrong - it would take one almighty conspiracy for AGW to have been invented. And an understanding of the influence of human nature in any endeavour of man is apparent in the every word of climate change deniers - not in the cold hard facts of science. Can science be skewed and manipulated? Of course it can. But can an entire branch of science, almost every single expert in the field, every journal, every university, every paper, every study be manipulated by some unspecified political force which wants to restrict the freedom of people in the western world for some unspecified reason, rationally be said to have been manipulated to such an extent? No. Of course it can't.

It is this holistic examination of the AGW debate that neither of you address. It is why you selectively respond to only those issues I raise in my responses that have scientific explanations while ignoring the much more troubling political issues.

The problem is that as far as I can see, you have totally failed to address the science - and that is at the heart of this issue. Without it - there is NO issue. There is nothing to talk about. Once we have established the facts - then we can consider the politics. But to insist - with no justification - that the the world's experts are wrong or lying is just a nonsense. You would prefer to rely upon your common sense and your gut instinct than look at the facts. If you understand so much about human nature then you will understand that people will often refuse to accept an unpalatable truth, they will ignore the facts if they don't suit them, they will seek scapegoats and rely upon their instincts and feelings when they would do better to seek expert opinion and face up to those problems.

But I cannot divorce the science from the politics on this issue. These are all people. They are not immune, no matter how many of them there are, from the exigencies of human nature when such stakes are present. In fact, I would submit that the more scientists that get on board with AGW, the more human nature rears its ugly head in creating a momentum to jump on the wagon. As I’ve said many times, scientists are people too.

Yes, human nature does indeed rear its ugly head - when 97% of the world's experts are ignored by 60% of the (American) population when they tell them that climate change is cause by human activity - then there is a very serious problemhen government and science mergean nature - and a desire to bury our heads rather than face unpleasant truths, to believe our own gut feelings rather than to consider the hard facts and to look to the short comings of others, rather than to consider the problems with our own reasoning.

A very thorough, well constructed and well written response Bec. You and Matt obviously have this talent in common. Given that I am a full-time student with a job, it will take me some time to get to this. I don't have nearly the free time I once had. But I promise I will get to it and respond to each of your points.

TexasBlue wrote:But don't any of you ever question whether things are as they're said to be? Whether or not AGW is real or not, it bears to remind everyone that there's always room for improvement, debate and further study.... from both sides of the equation.

I would agree if there was parity in the debate Tex, but there isn't. Anybody who tells you there is is lying to you. As in the two surveys I posted, over 90% of active researchers agree that humans are impacting the climate and that figure of 90% climbs the more qualified they are and the more active they are in research.

Of course we should always treat any scientific paper with a degree of scepticism and we should always be prepared to point out the flaws of any study otherwise I might as well set fire to my university certificates acknowledging that I am entitled to include BA (Hons) and MA after my name and write off my five years of study. I am perfectly capable of pointing to flaws, even if I agree with the position that the author is presenting. I have a Master's Degree in an environmental science so I like to think I know what I'm talking about even if others are convinced that I am a) duped by this great liberal conspiracy or b) complicit in it.